UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-2281
KIRK D. MATELYAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SAGE DINING SERVICES,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:10-cv-02626-PJM)
Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: April 1, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Kirk D. Matelyan, Appellant Pro Se. Ryan Keith Bautz, Gregory
Lee VanGeison, ANDERSON, COE & KING, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kirk D. Matelyan seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders resolving various discovery matters, granting summary
judgment to the defendant, and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)
motion. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Matelyan’s appeal
of the discovery orders and the grant of summary judgment
because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. We affirm
the denial of Matelyan’s Rule 60(b) motion.
Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of
the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal,
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends
the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the
appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely
filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional
requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The district court’s order granting summary judgment
was entered on the docket on August 24, 2012. The notice of
appeal was filed on October 15, 2012. Because Matelyan failed
to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or
reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal to the
extent it challenges the grant of summary judgment and the
district court’s preceding orders.
Further, although Matelyan timely appealed from the
order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, we find no error
2
in its denial and affirm. We grant Matelyan leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and deny his motion seeking leave to file a Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(a) motion. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
3